After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

I live His Word every day until I will be killed for testifying to His Word, which is my created existence within His mind. Thank God He created me as invisible vibrations that go on forever. Eventually, ALL God's created people will know Him in the next age as promised;

Jeremiah 3131: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,32: not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.33: But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.34: And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Religions are just different ways of conceptualizing and relating to the great mystery of "God". They aren't right or wrong, they just are what they are. It's naive and childish to think that "God" must conform to our religious visions, or God cannot 'be real'. Our religious visions do not determine the truth of reality. The truth of reality simply is what is, and it's our concepts of them that vary. Not the other way around.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

This 'personal relationship' with god is a relatively recent invention of Christianity when confronted with an increasingly educated and skeptical population (in developed countries, anyway). Would you consider or value a 'personal relationship' with one or all amoeba? I doubt it, and the gulf between us and any hypothetical god is far, far greater than that.

The elephant in the room is that god, if he existed, could easily provide undeniable evidence for his existence. These arguments being peddled are simply rationalizations for the lack of such evidence. They are made to cover the embarrassment the total absence of such evidence causes.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

This 'personal relationship' with god is a relatively recent invention of Christianity when confronted with an increasingly educated and skeptical population (in developed countries, anyway). Would you consider or value a 'personal relationship' with one or all amoeba? I doubt it, and the gulf between us and any hypothetical god is far, far greater than that.

The elephant in the room is that god, if he existed, could easily provide undeniable evidence for his existence. These arguments being peddled are simply rationalizations for the lack of such evidence. They are made to cover the embarrassment the total absence of such evidence causes.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

This 'personal relationship' with god is a relatively recent invention of Christianity when confronted with an increasingly educated and skeptical population (in developed countries, anyway). Would you consider or value a 'personal relationship' with one or all amoeba? I doubt it, and the gulf between us and any hypothetical god is far, far greater than that.

The elephant in the room is that god, if he existed, could easily provide undeniable evidence for his existence. These arguments being peddled are simply rationalizations for the lack of such evidence. They are made to cover the embarrassment the total absence of such evidence causes.

Well you are incorrect in reference to the God of Israel, the Christian"s God. There is documentation that states that man has had a relationship with his Creator through his Creator"s Word clear back to Adam. So the claim of relationship with God isn"t new.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

This 'personal relationship' with god is a relatively recent invention of Christianity when confronted with an increasingly educated and skeptical population (in developed countries, anyway). Would you consider or value a 'personal relationship' with one or all amoeba? I doubt it, and the gulf between us and any hypothetical god is far, far greater than that.

The elephant in the room is that god, if he existed, could easily provide undeniable evidence for his existence. These arguments being peddled are simply rationalizations for the lack of such evidence. They are made to cover the embarrassment the total absence of such evidence causes.

Well you are incorrect in reference to the God of Israel, the Christian"s God. There is documentation that states that man has had a relationship with his Creator through his Creator"s Word clear back to Adam. So the claim of relationship with God isn"t new.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

This 'personal relationship' with god is a relatively recent invention of Christianity when confronted with an increasingly educated and skeptical population (in developed countries, anyway). Would you consider or value a 'personal relationship' with one or all amoeba? I doubt it, and the gulf between us and any hypothetical god is far, far greater than that.

The elephant in the room is that god, if he existed, could easily provide undeniable evidence for his existence. These arguments being peddled are simply rationalizations for the lack of such evidence. They are made to cover the embarrassment the total absence of such evidence causes.

Physicists are beginning to realize there isn't any evidence of what they observe, either. They cannot prove that I, the Creator of all things, don't exist.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

This 'personal relationship' with god is a relatively recent invention of Christianity when confronted with an increasingly educated and skeptical population (in developed countries, anyway). Would you consider or value a 'personal relationship' with one or all amoeba? I doubt it, and the gulf between us and any hypothetical god is far, far greater than that.

I have a personal relationship with my gut bacteria. Does that count?

The elephant in the room is that god, if he existed, could easily provide undeniable evidence for his existence. These arguments being peddled are simply rationalizations for the lack of such evidence. They are made to cover the embarrassment the total absence of such evidence causes.

Well you are incorrect in reference to the God of Israel, the Christian"s God. There is documentation that states that man has had a relationship with his Creator through his Creator"s Word clear back to Adam. So the claim of relationship with God isn"t new.

Just like I have a 'personal' relationship with John Lennon via his words and music. They speak to me.

What evidence would that be?

Are you implying that an omnipotent god can't come up with indisputable evidence for his subjects? Anything above what we have now, zero, would be good.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

This 'personal relationship' with god is a relatively recent invention of Christianity when confronted with an increasingly educated and skeptical population (in developed countries, anyway). Would you consider or value a 'personal relationship' with one or all amoeba? I doubt it, and the gulf between us and any hypothetical god is far, far greater than that.

The elephant in the room is that god, if he existed, could easily provide undeniable evidence for his existence. These arguments being peddled are simply rationalizations for the lack of such evidence. They are made to cover the embarrassment the total absence of such evidence causes.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

This 'personal relationship' with god is a relatively recent invention of Christianity when confronted with an increasingly educated and skeptical population (in developed countries, anyway). Would you consider or value a 'personal relationship' with one or all amoeba? I doubt it, and the gulf between us and any hypothetical god is far, far greater than that.

The elephant in the room is that god, if he existed, could easily provide undeniable evidence for his existence. These arguments being peddled are simply rationalizations for the lack of such evidence. They are made to cover the embarrassment the total absence of such evidence causes.

Physicists are beginning to realize there isn't any evidence of what they observe, either. They cannot prove that I, the Creator of all things, don't exist.

But scientists can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court, that you're a verifiable "loony". What day have you promised to die? I like to keep track of all of the silly failed prophecies the lunatics (AKA: theists) I debate with like to spew. So far, the end of the Earth prophecy has failed at least four times, in 11 years.

At 7/11/2014 11:03:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:After doing some meditation, it does no good to read books on people who claim they can scientifically prove God's existence. As a Christian, i find this to be a waste of time. Sure, you can use ontological arguments, etc. but which God would you be proving exists? Allah? The theistic God? Which God? Yahweh? Science and logic cannot make that clear which leads me to think that the Bible doesn't work in the way people think. The Bible never proves God's existence, but states that God is and he is true to his Word. God wants a personal relationship with humanity in such an intimate level that he doesn't want for there to be just "evidence for him", he wants a personal relationship. Instead, prove that God's Word is faithful to the very end.

This 'personal relationship' with god is a relatively recent invention of Christianity when confronted with an increasingly educated and skeptical population (in developed countries, anyway). Would you consider or value a 'personal relationship' with one or all amoeba? I doubt it, and the gulf between us and any hypothetical god is far, far greater than that.

The elephant in the room is that god, if he existed, could easily provide undeniable evidence for his existence. These arguments being peddled are simply rationalizations for the lack of such evidence. They are made to cover the embarrassment the total absence of such evidence causes.

Physicists are beginning to realize there isn't any evidence of what they observe, either. They cannot prove that I, the Creator of all things, don't exist.

But scientists can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court, that you're a verifiable "loony". What day have you promised to die? I like to keep track of all of the silly failed prophecies the lunatics (AKA: theists) I debate with like to spew. So far, the end of the Earth prophecy has failed at least four times, in 11 years.

I don't give dates of when this world will be destroyed because I don't have that information revealed to me by our Creator. I do have the time frame of when I'll be killed. It's 1260 days ( 42 months ) from July 24th, 2011.